Yes, but that does not mean he wants them illegal. Maybe he would like to see that, but that is not what his opinion means.
Thomas' concurring opinion in the recent Dobbs case leaves no doubt he will push for the Supreme Court to overrule the Supreme Court precedent allowing contraceptives (Griswold), decriminalization of same-sex sexual activity (Lawrence) and allowing same-sex marriages (Obergefell).
There is no need to guess what Thomas intends to do -- he already told us, in his own words.
Thomas wrote (p. 2 of his concurring opinion):
"As I have previously explained, “substantive due process” is an oxymoron that “lack any basis in the Constitution.”
He then wrote (p. 3 of his concurring opinion):
"For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any sub- stantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., con- curring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated."
Here is a link to the entire Dobbs opinion ( plus appendices, concurring and dissenting opinions). Let's see if you can read the whole thing:
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a case centered on a Mississippi law that bars most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, a standard that violates Roe v. Wade.
www.cnn.com
